Paul and all
I love KEITHS' story about the automatic rifle. It proves just how
ABSOUTELY WRONG Keith is with publicly destroying a rotary engine! The
rifleman DID NOT run the gun over with a bulldoser to prove its
worth he
took it and USED IT FOR ITS INTENDED PURPOSE! Please publish your new
address Paul, I would like to send you a donation for the Everett Hatch
Fund to add my meager help to properly bring the rotary into the
limelight. Thanx Dave
Okay, Dave, instead of telling how the story proves something that it
doesn't prove, how about giving us your new idea on promoting the
Wankel?
Remember, what's been done DIDN'T WORK, so more of the same is worthless
-- it has to be a NEW IDEA that will grab and hold the attention of the
skeptics.
You're missing the whole point. The issue isn't the destruction of an
engine -- it is how long the engine CONTINUES TO RUN after an action
which should have IMMEDIATELY destroyed it, and would have immediately
destroyed any water-cooled engine with which the vast majority are
familiar.
And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought that "continues to
run" WAS the "intended purpose" of an engine (well, anything but a
Rotax, anyhow).
Let me also note that, in aerospace, such testing (and demonstration) is
not only common, but a near-universal requirement before adoption of a
new technology. The DOD has specific rules for such testing (go watch
"The Pentagon Wars," where they tested the Bradley by SHOOTING IT UP).
They test helmets by smashing them. I wouldn't wear a motorcycle helmet
which hadn't passed the latest set of such standardized testing. I
don't remember every being told that the intended purpose of a helmet
was to be smashed by an anvil.
They test tires by running them over steel spikes. One tire company
used to run commercials showing one of their tires hitting a steel spike
at 60 MPH. I don't remember anything that said the intended purpose of
a tire was to hit steel spikes.
They test anti-icing systems by forcing them to ice over to the point of
failure. I don't remember anything saying that the purpose of
anti-icing systems was to be defeated by ice.
Canopies are tested with the Chicken Gun. Fire supression systems are
tested with flamethrowers. Ammunition is tested at 40 degrees below
zero and 150 degrees above. The guns that they go in are tested by
tossed into cement mixers full of sand, or mud, or tar, or even corn
syrup, run around a while, then rinsed and fired.
The engineering world is FULL of extreme testing programs, and many of
these go far beyond running a Wankel without water to see how long it
will keep running and then to show how little damage was done by the
"torture."
I guess all of those companies, engineers, and the people who write
"torture test" acceptance standards are as crazy as I am, di ba?
The purpose of an engine is to RUN. I dunno about where you live, but
here in the West it is a very common sight to see a car or truck pulled
to the side of the road, steam pouring out the top and the last of the
water dripping out the bottom. engine seized and occupants in despair.
If we show an engine perceived to have been a flop as being relatively
immune to that challenge, then everyone who counts will wonder what else
they "know" about the Wankel isn't true.
I didn't pull the idea out of a hat. I looked at something that I've
done a dozen times (and seen a hundred times) and wondered how to adapt
the idea to the Wankel.
You can't just show an engine running. Oshkosh history is replete with
prototype engines, or highly-modified auto conversions, that came one
year and never appeared again. This certainly won't be the first time
that the Wankel appears there. But NOBODY CARES. Nobody even
REMEMBERS. They don't see an RX-7 and imagine putting the engine into
their plane. They don't even know that the RX-8 is running a rotary
engine, unless they get close enough to wonder why it sounds "funny."
To get this shift in mindset, you have to do something spectacular,
standing up in the face of a world of skeptics, grabbing their interest
and inviting them to prove that it's all done with smoke and mirrors.
Ad Topperwein did that -- he gave those two rifles over THIRTY-SIX
THOUSAND ROUNDS EACH.
And you're wrong, they were NOT intended to do that.
The average smallbore rifle shooter goes through 200 rounds each visit
to the range, so that's 15 YEARS' worth of EVERY-Saturday-at-the- range.
The average shooter cleans his rifle after done shooting, and Ad did
NOT clean them -- which is a kind of abuse very similar to running a
Wankel without water.
If you have a better idea how to do this, don't keep it to yourself,
share it with the rest of the class!
If you DON'T have a better idea, then get out of the way, people are
working here. We'll send for you when it's safe.
Keith
He is kidding Dave :) Now Keith be nice.
Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
Keith, clearly you are enjoying this non argument. I can't think of
a single realistic way to promote the rotory conversion (except to
build a beauty and fly in from 1000 miles out) and this includes, in
particular, your scheme. We cannot come up with a better idea but we
wish you could. Jerry
No, Jerry, I'm not enjoying the argument. But even less do I enjoy
being told that it's a bad idea by people who can't come up with
anything better than to keep doing what has been such a great success
for the last three decades.
People have been flying Mazda car-pulls since 1975. The rumors persist.
Spectacular tests such as this one are common in all sorts of other
fields of engineering, so why not this one?
. . .or do you think that the Wankel will FAIL this test . . ?
Personally, I don't much care what you fly, except that the fewer engine
failures the less flak we get from the non-homebuilders and the
non-aviators. Also, the more people flying Wankels, the more rotary
options will be available (I want a 50 HP, 100 lb Wankel for my
ultralight -- it won't arrive until the rumors are killed).
Keith
The Rotary Engine NewsLetter. Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site.
http://www.rotaryeng.net
Copyright 1998-2006 All world wide rights reserved.